Well, the reason we usually import energy is not because we couldn't generate it ourselves, but because it's cheaper to buy it from elsewhere. And if we have a surplus from the renewables you hate so much, it seems rather sensible to sell it.

Er, why is us selling spare energy to France not a good thing for taxpayers?

Not as funny as you thinking that air is a combustible fuel.

Depends who is getting the money from selling it and who is paying to generate it.

Yup..

The Met Office said a storm, named Storm Barbara, could see winds gusting to 90mph over western and northern parts of Scotland.

Forecasters have warned of possible disruption to power supplies.

Windmills have a max safe operating speed and if that's exceeded, have to get feathered or run the risk of RED (Rapid Energetic Disassembly). Then being strung from the ends of long above-ground pylons, those are vulnerable to storm damage as well.

That's again part of the insanity. The Greens warn us of more storms due to 'climate change', then insist on wind & solar panels, which are very vulnerable to storm damage. Wind knocks a few tiles off a roof, fairly cheap repair. Wind rips solar panels off roof.. well, insurance will cover that.

I like the way that we will have to pay more for less of a service. Genius! Only in Britain!

You could work that up into quite a conspiracy theory.

In the right conditions, it can be. But as usual, I didn't say that. The graphic shows energy density.. The energy density of wind is...?

Funny but irrelevant. Unless you want mobile power stations. And even then wind is more portable than Uranium.

Sounds quite logical to me but feel free.

No need. It's just business. So suppose you're say.. EDF. Guaranteed a market leading price for your energy, and then get paid again to export it to France.

Orly?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astute-class_submarine

That's pretty portable. The Russians even used some of their nuke boats as portable power generators, and have developed barge-based reactors for civil use.

Power supplies will be vulnerable to disruption from high winds as long as we have overhead power cables. I'm not sure why you think that feathering wind turbines under the rare conditions that make it necessary is likely to be what the Met Office had in mind.


Why would someone who denies all of mainstream climate science (and most of mainstream physics) be a fit person to accuse others of "insanity"?

You tell me. I'd say there was an excellent reason it doesn't feature on the graphic that you extended inside the confines of your own head!

I wish your sort could make up your minds if you approve of free markets or not.

Or is it another Illuminati conspiracy, like you think climate change is?

Here's what they say-

The wet and windy weather, which is as a result of a succession of deep Atlantic low pressure systems, gets underway today (20 December) with the northwest expecting a band of rain, heavy at times. There will also be strengthening winds which could reach severe gale force in the extreme northwest of Scotland.

If say, you'd invested a lot of money in windmills with a max rated safety speed, and forecasts indicated gusts may exceed those speeds... What would you do? And if you didn't, do you think your insurers would pay out?


You're projecting again. Are you suggesting that a nuclear power station is less vulnerable to weather than pretty much every form of 'renewables' that we've wasted billions on?

The interconnect will only handle a giga watt.

But wind is no good for base load generation.

Which, inevitably, isn't the same as you say.

I'd expect the wind turbines' automatic feathering and yawing systems to work in accordance with their design. This isn't the UPS at Eel Towers we are talking about here!


Hardly. You are on record as denying mainstream science, repeatedly. I am not.


Not sure that's quite what you meant to ask. But anyway, needless to say, the money spent on renewables has not been wasted, and I've already pointed out that you are overstating their weather vulnerabilities by making up reports in your own head. A consumer who loses power through the failure of an overhead power cable isn't going to care how the electricity he isn't getting was generated.

True, but the way they have beed used has made the grid more expensive and less reliable.
Wind should be used in addition to new base load capacity not instead of.

Yes but it's good for the environment.

One would hope so, but then windmills have had problems not behaving as expected, resulting in higher service/maintenance costs. Most notably in offshore installations, but over time any stresses from gusting winds will become more apparent.

Point remains that they're vulnerable to the weather, whereas power solutions used since the Industrial Revolution and Age of Steam are not.


You are, yet you don't realise it.


Sure it has. So back in the good'ol days the Greens seem to want us to go back to, wind and sail were used to power our trade and industry. Then along came steam, and power when it was needed, not when the weather co-operated.

Those fundamentals haven't changed, only our ability to build bigger and more expensive windmills. And of course if 'renewables' were a good thing, we'd see this in our steadily falling electricity bills.

And yet the opposite is happening. Funny that.

More expensive than what? Less reliable than what? Nuclear is good for base load, but nobody fantasises about it being cheap any more. We have to wean ourselves off fossil fuels, and coal is the worst. We've lost some capacity margin, but the UK grid is still pretty damned reliable, despite all the desperate claims from the anti-renewables science-denying lobby.

The usual vague waffle, then.


And more denial of the widespread deployment of overhead power cables - by far the most weather vulnerable part of the power system.


Hilarious. I'm not the clown who has spent years posting links to conspiracy nutter websites in a doomed attempt to show everyone that science is wrong.

Not even that. It should be used when the business case makes sense. So if you're way off-grid and can cope with intermittent power.

Problem the UK has is nobody would ever build windmills if they operated in accordance with normal market forces. Nobody but wealthy Greens would be willing to pay much higher prices compared to gas, nuclear or coal.

It's a real shame that 'Green' households can't be forced onto a wind-only tariff at true cost and unreliability. Frequent and prolonged power cuts may finally make them see sense.